Complexity, Innovation, Knowledge and Learning: A quantum interpretation of management

The future of corporate responsibility

Georg Kell, from the UN Global Compact office, gave in the Global Compact newsletter his view on the future of corporate responsibility. Coming out of an executive seminar of a week about leadership and innovation, for a company that is decided to have a set of sustainable values respected, it show that this is not an easy task.

Today, Corporate Responsibility (CR) is global.  Yes, if we have our T-shirts produced in cheap labour countries, it is our responsibility why we do that, how we do that and what we do with he huge benefits we make on selling those T-shirts at Western prices. It is our responsibility to decide whether we want to focus on the shareholder value, or on a stakeholder value, and then, who are my stakeholders and how do I serve them. It is indeed a difficult balance to strike between societal expectations and market imperatives. I do not want to make a post around the Olympic Games and Tibet: it is such an open door.  If you give the Olympics to China, you have to know who you give it to and not fall out of the air years later about the values of that country. With some smile I recall how the Olympics in Moscow were boycotted in 1980, since they invaded Afghanistan.  Life has changed, or is it economy that has changed and globalisation that struck?

As Kell says, global integration has triggered convergence around values and principles. The questions are on the table today, even though they remain difficult to determine and even more difficult to choose for.  But it seems that the next generation of top managers is at least more sensitive to values.  That is the good news; or is it just my way of seeing the sunny side of the street.

The nature of enterpresis risk and reward is changing. Maybe by accident (but those that know me, are aware that chance does not exist), l'Expansion of April 2008 published a study about the French investment abroad, in fact opposing China to India: the Indian eldorado is not going to wait for the French (is the title). According to Dominique Hoeltgen (in Mumbai) the Indian market is more promising than the Chinese one. The many subtitles suggest that the Indians are going fast now, are aware of their potential and the French (Michel Lemaire, Nexans) should stop focussing on China before it is too late. But is there also a difference in values and corporate responsibility (or not). The article does not shed light on this, but it warns the French companies. Some homework needs to be done here.

And of course, non financial reporting is on the rise. But how are we able to translate values and corporate responsibility into managerial concepts and day to day action. A shareholder approach is straightforward: no room for values or responsibility. A stakeholder view is difficult to define and implement, but it is sustainable.  Beyond reporting, the issue is one of shifting attention to sustainability, for the better of both the economy and the society.

Science: the newest religion ?

Recently, the French parliament received the (annual) update of the commission on sects. An impressive original document that already dates from 20 years ago, and an equally impressive list of sects (according to them). Most of us will certainly agree that some unfortunate experiences with sects (the Manson-Tate example) that caught the media, should make us wonder.  But since we are not courageous enough to deal with the real sects, and since we think only the parliament can make the distinction between sects and non-sects, we start to make rules and lists.

What is a sect? Wikipedia clearly sees it in the realm of religion. And interestingly: "deviating from orthodox practices".  So, there are those that are mainstream and therefor correct, and those that are deviating, and therefor a sect.  The organisation for religious tolerance (whatever that might mean), cites Leo Pfeffer, saying "if you believe in it, it is a religion; if you do not care one way or another, it is a sect; but if you fear and hate it, it is a cult". Though Pfeffer seems to have great reputation, his definition seems dangerous to me (but who am I?)  And who is the organisation for religious tolerance; they might be a sect, who knows.  I do not care about them one way or another; hence they fit Pfeffer's criteria. I am sure you start to get the point.

Ode summarizes an article on the Tiranny of Science of Frank Furedi. Science seems to tell us how the world works, but to decide what those discoveries mean, we need moral and philosophical debate.  And yes, that is not Cartesian for sure. The language of right and wrong has been replaced by the phrase "the research shows".  At least: the mainstream research shows, since that is what gets published. And recall: the mainstream is correct, the deviating is a sect.

Certain parts of good old Europe, and France is definitely part of that, has for one or another reason felt that they should ban religion, and in the same line "spirituality" from life. It is encouraging to see courses like "spirituality and leadership" (Vargas-Brazil), or "spirituality and management" (IIM-Bangalore, India) on the curricula of good and accredited business schools. Is that what we call BRIC?  Probably not, praise God (I start messing up everything). In Europe, we want to claim supremacy around corporate social responsibility and/or sustainable development, or ethics, but we forget that in order to make those topics naturally acceptable, it should be part of the managerial paradigm.  If we do not accept that everything and all are intimitely connected (systemic, indeed), then all those slogans become vague.  And by the way, the spiritual dimension of things specifically deals with that profound interconnectedness of people and their environment: nothing more, nothing less. It is in fact the "what for" question.  I am sorry if this is disappointing for some of you.

It would be good if people would be able to make the distinction between spiritual development of the individual and whatever role religion is playing. In the best of its interpretation some religions have developped a ritus to support people in their spiritual development.  But in the worst of their actions, they have developed an institute that is in for power and manipulation (the nazi's that thought "Gott mit uns", or Bush who asks God to bless America, and only America; and of course, I am not going to talk about Opus Dei). But in the same organisation you find people that are seeking that profound interconnectedness (Daens, Dom Helder Camara, Mother Theresa, just to cite a few known figures).

Is science the newest religion? Is it a powerhouse with ranks, promotions, mainstream (the orthodox) and dissonants (the sects?). Is it rituals, that we agree on, and that make us part of the group? Or should science finally start investigating the exploration and discovery of that interconnectedness. For sure, some scientists are already doing that, but unfortunately they are sometimes considered by the others as a sect.  Science investigates facts, not meanings.  And indeed, mainstream science is unable to research meaning. But that does not make meaning less necessary, and it does not make researching meaning sectarian.

What makes a house a home? In order to have a house, we need walls, a roof, electricity, plumbing, furniture, heating, etc.  But all that will not help to make a house a home. Try and find out what makes a house a home, and you will discover what spirituality is all about: nothing to be afraid of. 

 

Elephant painting

Just watch this, no further comments.